Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:14 -0800 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: thoughts on kernel security issues |
| |
* Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > On Iau, 2005-01-13 at 21:03, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Alan Cox wrote: > > - no embargo, no rules, but "private" in the sense that it's supposed to > > be for kernel developers only or at least people who won't take > > advantage of it. > > > > _I_ think this is the one that makes sense. No hard rules, but private > > enough that people won't feel _guilty_ about reporting problems. Right > > now I sometimes get private email from people who don't want to point > > out some local DoS or similar, and that can certainly get lost in the > > flow. > > And also not passed on to vendors and other folks which is a pita and > this would fix > > > > - _short_ embargo, for kernel-only. I obviously believe that vendor-sec > > is whoring itself for security firms and vendors. I believe there would > > be a place for something with stricter rules on disclosure. > > Seems these two could be the same list with a bit of respect for users > wishes and common sense.
I think they should be the same. I hope the draft security contact bits reflect that.
thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |